BAM Says

Diary of a World-Class Gainer - Weight Check-In (10/30/08)

BAM — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:03:00 GMT

Starting weight (8/24/08) - 230 pounds

Current weight (10/30/08) - 199 pounds

Total weight loss - 31 pounds

Total weight loss percentage - 13.5%

Diary of a World Class Weight Gainer - The Real Question

BAM — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:45:00 GMT

I have lost enough weight in the last 60 days that it is noticeable to most people who see me. Invariably, these folks will ask, “how did you do it?” as in “which diet did you use to lose the weight?” I will dutifully answer the question, but it is the wrong question. In fact, no matter the “what” in life, the “how” is irrelevant as compared to the “why.” Did you follow that? No matter what “big thing” one is trying to achieve, success or failure will be determined by “why,” not “how.” Therefore, the more relevant question is “why did I to decide to lose weight?”

“Why” completely explains my enormous success in gaining weight as I have over the years. Why gain weight? Because it was not important for me to lose it. My self-esteem had, as still has, nothing to do with my waist line. Rightly or wrongly, I have always had a rather high opinion of myself regardless of what the scale says. I take great pains to accentuate the positive in my own mind, so as my waist line expanded, I mentally focused on other positive aspects of my being. Why gain weight? Because it’s fun. I love Whoppers and onion rings, pulled pork sandwiches and fries, chicken wings and beer. I love sitting around a table with family and friends eating and talking. At this stage in my life, eating and talking is had replaced drinking and clubbing has my primary means of recreation. I love food and I am not ashamed to profess this love from the highest of mountains and in the loudest of tones. So there!

“Why” also completely explains my initial success in losing weight so far. I have two children that think the world of me. My wife thinks I’m pretty cool, too (most of the time)! Of course, it is not unusual for children to see “Daddy” as a hero. Also not unusual for “Daddy” to want to prove on a daily basis that this hero worship is justified. Part of being a hero is being there, whenever and whenever “there” happens to be. So why lose weight? My “why” is a two year old daughter whose wedding I would like to attend. My “why” is a four-year old son whom I would like to help become a man. My “why” is the knowledge that trying to carry 230 pounds on a 5 foot 5 inch frame is essentially asking for a heart attack. My “why” was finally realizing it was time to let the hero inside me come out. When I came to these realizations, I did not know how I would change, but I knew why I would change. And “why” is really all anyone needs.

How am I losing the weight? I started to believe in the “why” more than I feared the “how.” I found a reason to do the obvious, eat less and move more. I discovered there were people I loved more than Big Macs and developed an interest in proving it. I discovered my inner hero. When “why” becomes strong enough, the how will reveal itself no matter the “what.” Get it?

Take it down a notch

BAM — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:38:00 GMT

One of the trademark phrases of Emeril Lagasse, the famous TV chef, is “take it up a notch.” When Emeril “takes it up a notch,” he is adding a little something extra to one of his culinary creations to make it spicier and more flavorful, something to make it go “BAM!” Politicians all over the nation are adding a little something extra to their campaigns as well, but in a way for which Mr. Lagasse undoubtedly wants no credit. In order, perhaps, to capture our fleeting 21st century attention spans, politicians at all levels are attacking their opponents in some alarming ways and, as a result, making the climate in your neighborhood and mine much “spicier” than should be. As a result, it will be incumbent upon all of us to ensure we “take it down a notch” after this election is over.

In every election cycle, campaigns “go negative,” but this cycle feels decidedly different. It is unfortunately commonplace for politicians to employ nasty rhetoric about the policies or even the character of their political opponents. However, I cannot recall an election during which so many candidates at all levels have so openly “taken it up a notch,” essentially accusing their opponents of criminal behavior. This year, there have been a troubling number of politicians selecting “un-American” or “anti-American” as their slur du jour. More troubling, however, is the carelessness with which the “anti-American” label is applied, its definition widened to include the expected disagreements between candidates on issues like foreign policy and economic philosophy. Does advocating for a particular tax policy position, any tax policy position, really make someone “anti-American?” When a candidate calls another candidate “anti-American,” that candidate is in fact leveling a charge of treason, a crime, may I remind you, which is punishable by death if convicted. The worst part of these accusations is not the resultant decline in the level of political discourse between politicians, but its negative impact on the rest of us. If a politician is “anti-American,” then the logical progression is that we will view his or her supporters, our neighbors, with contempt and hate. This is the “spice” that is starting to give me heartburn.

If you are like me, you are already seeing this “spicier” environment in your community. A friend of my wife’s, an otherwise kind and reasonable woman, claimed recently in mixed company that Barack Obama was “the anti-Christ.” Huh? Another neighbor claims on our community’s online message board that she intends to “sue the HOA” for the right to plant a political sign in her front yard against current HOA policy. Her first reaction was to converse with her lawyer rather than her neighbor. I don’t believe our neighbors truly believe Senator Obama is the devil or that they will actually sue over a sign. However, both situations speak to the degree that, at the behest of our “leaders,” we are beginning to our national politics as a struggle between good and evil rather than one between thoughtful people with honest disagreements.

To extent that we have love for our neighbors, we feel that way for a reason. They are kind friends, good parents, and caregivers to our children when we need them in a pinch. They are a part of what’s right with our communities regardless of the party they support. Republicans, Democrats and Independents teach our children, put out our fires, heal our sick and heroically defend our country in times of war. Holding and expressing a different political view does not make a person evil. It makes them American. As Americans, we have always been secure enough as a people to tolerate and even invite dissent between citizens. This dissent makes us stronger. So let’s not define “good” so narrowly as to exclude half the population. To do so would truly be “un-American.”

In less than a week, either John McCain or Barack Obama will be elected president. The President elect will undoubtedly ask us all to answer history’s call to solve our 21st century challenges. However, if we are to answer this call victoriously, we will first have to work to restore an environment that welcomes political disagreement rather than demonizing it. For the common good and unlike too many of our leaders, each of us will have to check our rhetoric and “take it down a notch.”

Diary of a World Class Weight Gainer - Weight Check-In

BAM — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:33:00 GMT

Starting weight (8/24/08) - 230 pounds

Current weight (9/22/08) - 212 pounds

Total weight loss - 18 pounds

Total weight loss percentage - 7.8%

Diary of a World Class Weight Gainer – Retirement Announcement

BAM — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:24:00 GMT

I come before you today to announce my retirement as a world-class weight gainer and weight retainer. I have been dedicated to this sport for more than half of my life so, as you may imagine, I have not come to this decision lightly. However, it has become clear to me that my passion for the sport has waned to the point where I am no longer the weight gainer and weight retainer I used to be. I have always promised myself that I would leave the sport on my own terms when my skills started to diminish and I could no longer compete on an elite level. Today, I am making good on that promise.

I would like to thank everyone who has supported me throughout my career, many of whom have been with me since the beginning. Many of you have steadfastly stood by me as I have tested my physical limits, continually striving to see exactly how much weight a frame built to hold about 150 pounds could endure. Some of you were there when I started by career by gaining a mere 40 pounds (going from 140 to 180 pounds) from 1984 to 1988. Some of you began to follow my career when I was able to push my weight from 150 to 230 pounds from 1992-1999, gaining an eye-popping 60 pounds from 1996-1999 alone. Still more of you witnessed my crowning achievement, again gaining 80 pounds but in a shorter time period, from 2001-2004, and maintaining that weight until about a month ago. However, my recent weight loss, 18 pounds in 30 days, has made it abundantly clear that my days as a world-class weight gain athlete are numbered. I am confident that I will be just as successful in retirement as I have been in my playing days.

I understand it will be difficult to give up something that has been a part of my life for so long and at which I have achieved so much success. However, I promise that this will not be a Brett Favre or Michael Jordan situation in which an athlete retires only to be beckoned back to the sport by “the love of the game.” I promise this is the last time you will ever see me on the field of play. This is not to say that I have completely lost my love for the game. There are few things that bring me more joy than Burger King’s Double Whopper with a King Sized side order of onion rings. I recall fondly the many nights I derived pleasure from brazenly eating chocolate ice cream while watching NBC’s The Biggest Loser. Finally, Philly cheese steaks from any variety of local restaurants are a love I will always treasure. Make no mistake about it. I have many years of fond memories of my career as a weight gainer. Nevertheless, I have decided to forever direct my “love of the game” in a different direction.

Over the next weeks and months, I will keep you, my fans, posted regarding the goings in my retirement. I will give you more insight into why retired, how I am staying retired and how I am progressing toward filling the competitive void that dooms so many athletes in their retirement years. Stay tuned for periodic entries in my blog entitled “Dairy of a World Class Weight Gainer.”

Again, thank you for my support. Without you, “there is no me.”

Not Taking the Bait

BAM — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:06:00 GMT

Barack Obama has been criticized during this election cycle for not being "tough enough." Some have suggested that he can win the general election, even if her manages to win the Democratic Party one, because he is not enough of a "fighter" to withstand a Republican Party onslaught. I applaud Obama attempt to stay above fray. We, as the voting electorate, cannot decry negative campaigning and then reward it with our votes at the same time. Negative campaigning will exists as long as it works and in 2008, sadly, it still works. Unless... we decided we are not taking the bait anymore!

Insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/26/obama-ive-been-taking-some-hits/

Brush Your Shoulders Off, Barack!

BAM — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:47:00 GMT

I applaud Barack Obama decision to stay above the fray in the Pennsylvania debate on Wednesday. Nearly half of the debate was about questions that make great headlines but no difference to the well-being of the American voter and he was getting most of them. Hillary Clinton was happy to dive in and draw connections between every inane topic and one's (particularly Obama's) fitness to be President. However, when Barack was given the chance to bury her for her repeatedly "mis-speaking" about her trip to Bosnia as first lady, he refused to take the bait. The pundits called his performance during the debate a weak one.

The next day, at a rally in North Carolina, he brushed his shoulders off!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-attempts.html

I hope Alicia Keys is not crazy

BAM — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:45:00 GMT

I really like Alicia Keys! The Alicia Keys I know is beautiful, talented, self-aware and politically active. Some of her some songs are some of my favorites of all-time. And then I heard that she went crazy, allegedly. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,350916,00.html

Alicia Keys, allegedly, in an interview for a Blender magazine article, said that gangsta rap was created by the U.S. government to motivate Black people to kill each other. Huh? If she did make such a comment, I'm not sure who should be insulted the most by it. Is it the "pawn-of the-government" rappers who recorded music meant to kill their own fans, like insects from the pesticide commercials that unwillingly carry poison into their own homes?

Or is it the "pawn-of the-government" fans of gangsta rap that are too simple-minded to exercise free will? Oh, and the people in "government" about whom the state was alledgely made may also be a little "bent."

I read now that Alicia is saying that she did not make the comments in the way that they were first reported. http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/alicia-keys-statement-regarding-blender-magazine_563516_1.html

Whew! I was really hoping that Alicia Keys is not crazy!

The Same Tired Game

BAM — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:45:00 GMT

BET founder Bob Johnson has put himself in the middle of the Democratic primary with another one of his "observations." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/15/cafferty-bet-founder-brings-race-back-into-the-race/ Johnson suggested that being Black is an advantage for Barack Obama in his effort to become the Democratic nominee and that suggestion angered me. The reason for my anger, however, may not be what you expect it to be.

I will not kill Johnson for supporting Clinton. Blacks expecting all other Blacks to support Obama is no different morally than other races expecting all Blacks to eat fried chicken and watermelon. As free people, we all have the right to make our own choices and take our own positions without ridicule.

I will not kill Johnson for failing to parrot the conventional Black wisdom on matters of race. We are not supposed to say that being Black is anything but a terrible burden (at least when whites are listening), but we Blacks know this is not really true.

My problem with Johnson's statement is that he just became the latest to take the bait. Rather than using his position and access to the media to engage in some productive dialogue, he is dragging us to the same old tired game, the counter-productive barroom debate attempt to quantify burden and benefit based on one's demographics.

What does this debate ever get us? More education? More opportunity? More freedom? No. Just more nonsense. Just more headlines, but no more headway. Can't we do better than the same tired game?

Getcha Popcorn Ready

BAM — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:02:00 GMT

In a normal year, I would be deep in the midst of National Football League withdrawal. This is the “dead period” in sports, the time between the end of the professional football season and the start of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. However, this year, I have not missed the NFL at all. Another spectator sport has me completely captivated, the U.S. Presidential race. As Dallas Cowboy wide receiver Terrell Owens would say, “getcha popcorn ready.” It’s going to be one heck of a show.

Two days after the Super Bowl, February 5th, Super Tuesday took place. Some experts believed that Super Tuesday, the day on which 20+ states had their primaries and caucuses, would signal the end of each party’s nomination process. It turns out that the experts don’t know any more than the rest of us. The presumptive Democratic nominee, New York senator Hillary Clinton, was now in the fight of her life with the upstart, Illinois senator Barack Obama. The Republican candidate that was left for dead politically only a few months ago, Arizona senator John McCain, is now all but certain to earn his party’s nomination despite the protests of the most conservative members of his party. The path to the Final Four (Clinton, Obama, McCain and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee) has had as many twists and turns as any NFL season I can remember. Maybe that explains why I took ESPN’s Sports Reporters off of my TiVo season pass and replaced it with ABC’s This Week.

Obviously the “game” being played between the Presidential candidates is no game at all. The most significant of real issues are being discussed. “Cut-and-run” versus the “100-year war.” “Amnesty for illegal aliens” versus “a path to citizenship for undocumented workers.” “Big government” versus “Small government.” A major course correction versus a tweak here and there. The holy ghost of Ronald Reagan versus the holy ghost of John F. Kennedy. People all across the county are more engaged than ever. Good thing! The decisions to be made have seldom been more critical to the future of the nation. Concerning thing!

One thing is certain. I will not be able to take my eyes off of the race until November. Maybe you feel the same way. If so, you’d better “getcha popcorn ready!”

Full Citizenship

BAM — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:26:00 GMT

My wife and I voted early today in the Georgia U.S. Presidential primary. We were both filled with pride that we had done our "civic duty." It is astounding to consider how many people do not exercise their right to vote, especially in light of what our ancestors endured to earn that right. America was founded by those who refused to accept "taxation without representation" and were willing to die to earn that representation. Minorities and women at different parts of our history have had to fight (and sometimes die) for the right to vote and thus for their "full citizenship." That's right. Full citizenship. One is not a full citizen unless he or she participates in our political process. Claim your citizenship! It is not nearly as important for whom you vote as it is that you vote!

Part 2 of 2: “Scapegoat studies” on hip-hop continue to miss the real point

BAM — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:50:00 GMT

It is no secret that we black folk have problems…big problems and lots of them. But is hip-hop music really one of them? None of us are proud of the rate at which we as a group commit violent crimes, get incarcerated, fail to achieve academically, abuse illegal substances or see our teens become pregnant. These problems have never been a secret, especially to us, but they have never been more visible to others. Of course, in the information age, everything is more visible to everyone. Twenty-four hour news channels have plenty of airtime to fill and the negative side of the African-American experience gets at least its share of the coverage. Further, African-Americans are becoming more willing to discuss our issues “outside the family.” One of our most prominent entertainers Bill Cosby has apparently retired from the entertainment business to tour the country putting African-Americans and our self-destructive behavior “on blast.” Despite Mr. Cosby’s good intentions, his message has not always been greeted warmly. No one likes to look too closely his or her flaws. There is no question that our “stuff” is out there in the open.

So apparently, it is not difficult to for many to believe that we blacks are more susceptible to the negative influence of entertainment media than are our white counterparts. It has been argued even among blacks that the choices that black teenagers make are governed by the “hip-hop heroes” they witness living opulent, enviable life styles. As the argument goes, we must fight this influence by battling the rap industry to be more responsible in their messaging. However, millions of white teens see the same glamorization of criminal behavior on The Sopranos and in hip-hop music and culture (white teens love Biggie too), but no one seems to feel that these influences preclude this teen from getting an education, staying out of prison and contributing to society in a positive way. The inference here is that black teens are just ignorant enough to set their moral compasses, not by the positive influences that may be present in their own homes, families, churches or communities, but the negative influences provided by entertainers. Are we ready to accept that characterization? Is the answer that easy? Are we that pitiful?

There is one inescapable fact that the “hip-hop problem” discussions and all of the “scapegoat studies” avoid. Despite our best efforts, we cannot build an environment sanitized to the point that it guarantees the success of its inhabitants. We will all be faced with undesirable situations and we will be forced to take action and make choices based upon the environment with which we are presented. In life, two people can experience the same stimuli and have completely different reactions. Oprah Winfrey turned childhood sexual abuse into the motivation to become one of the most successful business people in the America’s history. Conversely, many would-be violent criminals turned childhood sexual abuse into the foundation from which they became violent. Life can be terribly unfair, but we still get to help determine its outcome. Individuals make choices. Some turn tragedy into triumph while others turn tragedy into more tragedy. Regardless of circumstance, the outcomes of our lives ultimately depend on the action we take above all else.

Similarly, different individuals experience hip-hop music and culture and have different reactions. We cannot predict any music will effect anyone well enough to draw simple cause-and-effect solutions. Many people hear hip-hop music and see hope, encouragement, passion and a reason to achieve. Hip-hop music and culture has spawned business titans that sell its music and other products and teach others to strive for similar success. Hip-hop has served as a positive choice for countless individuals, individuals who chose to make music rather than make mischief. Some will hear hip-hop as a beats, rhymes and unintelligible lyrics. Others will hear it and take it as entertainment and even positive inspiration. Some outlying individuals may hear hip-hop and be inspired to develop a plan for mayhem. Do we really believe that these people would have chosen the church choir over the streets were it not for hip-hop? Ultimately, hip-hop does not define the mission of the individual, but instead the individual defines the mission of hip-hop in his or her life.

The point that “scapegoat studies” miss is that people make choices for which the world will hold them responsible regardless. The “hip-hop-made-me-do-it” defensive will not reverse court decisions or biological laws. So if we want to solve problems, we need to seek answers, not excuses. Goodness knows that we have plenty of problems that need solving. How do we curb violent crime, misogyny, the destruction of the family unit? These are the real questions, not how do we “stop hip-hop” or exonerate it. Hip-hop artists are not developing their ideas in political think-tanks. They are singing what they know, what they see. If life experience drives musical content and we are displeased with the content, the better question to address is how we can change the experience of the artists who eventually make the music? We must address the problem, not the symptom. The longer we foolishly seek a Utopia, in which our young people’s minds are shielded from reality, the work we do preparing them for that reality or creating a better one. No matter how damning the case appears against hip-hop, a song has never pulled a trigger nor committed a sex act.

Perhaps Bakari Kitwana made the most profound statement on the subject included in this New York Times article. This should be no surprise, as Kitwana is the author of “The Hip-Hop Generation,” seen by many as the definitive book about hip-hop culture. Mr. Kitwana said. “Hip-hop is a generational phenomenon that has united young people. If that’s not understood, you’re going to miss a lot.” Rather than attempt to diminish the power of hip-hop, perhaps we should try to understand, as Mr. Kitwana suggests, the minds of our young people. This understanding will help us all develop powerfully positive messages that speak more effectively to them. If our country is ablaze in an inferno of moral decay, hip-hop is not the wildfire, but some of its attendant billowy smoke. Let’s fight the real fire. Until we do, we will continue to miss the real point.

Part 1 of 2: “Scapegoat studies” on hip-hop continue to miss the real point

BAM — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:46:00 GMT

Mainstream media has repeatedly suggested that hip-hop music and culture contributes to, if not directly causes, a myriad of social ills including violent crime, misogyny, low interest in education and anti-social behavior. Hip-hop, the most studied musical genre in the history of musical genres, was again under the microscope in the November 6, 2007 New York Times article entitled “For Clues on Teenage Sex, Experts Look to Hip-Hop.” No one would suggest that we as a society should not try to learn how teens make decisions regarding when and how they engage in sexual activity with the purpose of helping them make better decisions. However, the framing of the question itself yet again misses the real point to be discussed. Discussions that begin with the presumption that hip-hop is the problem to be solved, “scapegoat studies” as I call them, bring us no closer to solving any of the important issues that hip-hop allegedly exacerbates.

The November 6, 2007 New York Times article “For Clues on Teenage Sex, Experts Look to Hip-Hop” describes a study published by the journal Pediatrics and performed by the RAND Corporation which suggested that exposure to the “degrading lyrics” found in many hip-hop songs caused increased sexual activity in teens. According to the study, those teens who were exposed to the highest levels of “degrading lyrics,” lyrics defined as “those that portrayed women as sexual objects, men as insatiable and sex as inconsequential,” were twice as likely to have had sex by the end of the study than those not exposed to such lyrics. In other words, according to the RAND Corporation, some hip-hop music makes teens have sex. On its face, the suggestion that when correcting for all other factors, music by rapper Ja Rule confounds a teen’s moral compass twice as powerfully as music by the pop crooners 98 Degrees, two artists explicitly mentioned in the RAND study, seems ludicrous. I am sure Ludacris would agree. This is not to suggest that all of the lyrics of hip-hop songs are easily defensible as art or even as decent expression. However, one must wonder how well our society is served by studies that isolate hip-hop, though it is only one of the dozens of cultural influences to which a teen may be exposed, as a significant driver of teen decision making.

If one believes the conclusion of the RAND study, the logical next step would be to ban “degrading lyrics” in music or, at the very least, make this music much more difficult for a teenager to consume. Currently, the objectionable music cited in the RAND study is marked with a Parental Advisory Label (PAL) and cannot be legally purchased in record stores by those under the age of 17. Additionally, some retailers, including Wal-Mart, the largest seller of music in the country, will not sell any music affixed with the PAL. Further, those who would consume these songs “by accident” on free radio or cable television stations like MTV or BET do not actually hear the unfiltered versions of these songs. Granted, the “clean” versions of these songs are profanity-free lyrically but certainly not free of profane intent. Nevertheless, those teens who consume music with “degrading lyrics” are doing so intentionally and after scaling the barriers currently erected to deter them. Yet perhaps the positive impact of such a ban, like a decrease in teen sexual activity as claimed by the RAND study, would more than compensate for any cost incurred enforcing such a ban. Problem solved? Not so fast! We’d better wait for the results of the Tony Soprano study before we spend too much time, effort and money banning hip-hop music.

What? You have not heard of the Tony Soprano study? You have not missed anything because such a study does not exist. The Sopranos, of course, was the hugely popular HBO series that ended its six season run in May. In The Sopranos, the fictional New Jersey crime boss Tony Soprano, played by James Gandolfini, was an extremely profane, bigoted, murdering, serial adulterer who operated a strip club as a front for his illegal businesses. The Sopranos featured countless instances of the language the RAND study defined as “degrading” and, as a TV program, was able to burn corresponding visual images into impressionable minds in a way that music cannot. Undoubtedly, teens found it just as easy to view episodes of The Sopranos as to gain access to music marked with the PAL. Yet, protests imploring HBO to stop airing its top-rated show have been non-existent while hip-hop music has been the target of many a protest. Clearly, TV gangsters do not invoke the same wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth as do musical gangstas.

In fact, The Sopranos, as evidenced by the profuse acclaim the show received, was embraced wholeheartedly by the public and the television industry alike. The show is the highest rated cable series of all-time. It recognized with 16 Emmy awards during its six season run and dozens of other Emmy nominations. TV Guide named The Sopranos the fifth best TV show of all-time. Acceptance of The Sopranos was so complete that U.S. senator Hillary Clinton, in a short film also featuring former President Clinton, starred in a takeoff of the series finale episode of The Sopranos designed to help launch her U.S. Presidential campaign. One of the most profane, violent and misogynistic shows in the history of American television was seen as innocuous enough and mainstream enough for a Presidential candidate to seek to be associated with it. And hip-hop is the problem? Hmmm.

The Sopranos, of course, is not the only show to receive the “societal impact pass” that hip-hop has yet to earn. When was the last time an actor had to defend his or her fictional characters as rap acts like 2 Live Crew, Ice-T or Enimem have had to defend the content of their lyrics? Rarely is an actor criticized for the potential deleterious impact on society of a role that he or she has played. In fact, the bullet train to Hollywood accolades often goes through depravity. Of the last six winners of the Best Actor Academy Award beginning with Denzel Washington in 2001, only Adrien Brody in The Pianist played a character whose moral character was not either questionable or unquestionably bad. Denzel Washington was not widely accused of glamorizing crime or eroding the public’s trust in authority for his Oscar award winning portrayal the fictional dirty cop Alonzo Harris in movie Training Day. Rightly, Denzel is considered by most to be a skilled practitioner of his craft, someone worthy of emulation. Rapper Christopher Wallace, however, even in his Life After Death, must defend his character, the Notorious B.I.G. Do we really believe that rappers are more dangerous Svengalis to impressionable teenaged minds than are actors? Perhaps there is a different belief that drives some of the negative attention that hip-hop receives.

The NFL Play of the Decade

BAM — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:08:00 GMT

The best play I have seen in the NFL this year, perhaps this decade, occurred in the game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Dallas Cowboys on Sunday.

This play, a 24-yard run by Philadelphia Eagles running back Brian Westbrook that did not result in a touchdown, will be left on the cutting room floor in the sports news rooms of many cities around the country as they build their highlight reels. However, in all my years as a sports fan, I cannot recall another play that combined athleticism, intelligence and "team-first" selflessness as did Westbrook's play on Sunday. As I watched this play unfold, I was at once astounded and reminded again why we love sports.

For those who did not see Westbrook's play, the following is the context in which it transpired. The Eagles had a 10-6 lead and the ball on the Dallas 25-yard line with a little more than two minutes left in the fourth quarter. Moments earlier, Philadelphia had intercepted Dallas quarterback Tony Romo for the third time in the game. The Eagles' offense was trying to ensure Romo would not get an opportunity to inspire another improbable victory, as he had several times in leading the Cowboys to a 12-1 record in 2007. Dallas had already called its final timeouts on defense in an attempt to save Romo some time to lead another such victory. From the Dallas 25, Westbrook took the handoff, broke into the clear and what followed was truly remarkable.

Westbrook ran to the offensive right and, in short order, had beaten the defense to the degree that there was not a single defender in the same camera shot with him. At this point, Westbrook slowed from a sprint to a walk as if to begin the "pre-end zone celebration" that has become popular among many of his NFL brethren. I was bracing for another silly NFL "look at me" moment. But before I could mentally chastise Westbrook for the arrogance I had wrongly expected him to show, he had lain down on the 1 yard line to allow himself to be touched down by a Dallas defender. The end of the play coincided with two-minute warning. With Dallas powerless to stop the clock, the Eagles' quarterback Donovan McNabb then took three snaps to run out the clock, keeping the Dallas offense on the sidelines and sealing the Eagles' 10-6 victory.

Westbrook had not just made a 24-yard run, but he had played athletic chess in a manner that would make Gary Kasparov proud. Westbrook had determined that his team's chances for victory actually increased by him not scoring a touchdown. More importantly, he valued increasing his team's odds for victory more than his own personal achievement or self-aggrandizement. No one would have blamed Westbrook for scoring the touchdown. In fact, it would not have occurred to most that there was any other option that may have benefited his team more. Scoring the touchdown would have made the score 17-6, putting Dallas in the nearly impossible situation of having to score two touchdowns in less than two minutes to win the game. However, not scoring the touchdown made Dallas' predicament for all practical purposes impossible: scoring a touchdown at all without the getting the ball.

In all walks of life, so many people say "team" but never really do "team." We all know it is politically correct to say the good of the team comes before the good of the individual. However, so few appear willing to choose the team when its interests are in directly conflict with their own. Too few people live like they believe there are goals more important that our own. As a result, we cynically expect others, even public servants, to serve themselves first. Little did we know that we would get a lesson in humility from a professional athlete?

Plays like the one that Brian Westbrook made Sunday are the reason why I love sports. The great thing about sport is that you can sit down to watch a game and, if you are paying attention, leave with a life lesson. At the next opportunity, maybe you or I will be more likely to "Westbrook," meaning put the group's interests first even to the apparent detriment of our own. Maybe we will set aside making a better "me" and try to make a better world.

The Last "Greater Fool"

BAM — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:23:00 GMT

On Tuesday, Bobby Petrino left his head coaching position with the Atlanta Falcons to fill the head coaching vacancy at the University of Arkansas. Petrino and his roving eye for the next best coaching opportunity has been benefiting for years from a version of the "greater fool theory." In investing circles, many ascribe to the "greater fool theory," the theory that money can be made even on questionable investments because there will always be "greater fool" willing to buy that investor's mistake. Similarly, Petrino has always been able to find a greater fool to buy his coaching services despite the promises or, in the case of the Falcons, the ruin he leaves behind. All prospective future employers of Bobby Petrino would be wise to make sure that the University of Arkansas is the last greater fool.

When Bobby Petrino left the Atlanta Falcons only 13 games into a five year contract signed in January, there was anger among all members of the Falcons family (players, front office, and fans) as well as in the general football community, but there was certainly no surprise. Petrino has built a track record of saying whatever necessary to keep his current employer at bay while brazenly seeking "better" employment. While at University of Louisville, Petrino made an infamous stealth visit to Auburn to meet with school officials to discuss a job that was still occupied by current coach Tommy Tuberville. Petrino not so secretly coveted so many open college coaching positions afterward that Louisville asked him to reaffirm his commitment to the school by signing a 10-year, $25 million contract in July 2006. Petrino stayed committed for all of six months until the Falcons offered him a 5-year, $24 million contract.

It is easy to argue that the Falcons should have known better than to hitch its horses to such a flaky wagon. However, among the local Atlanta fans, most of the blame for the situation that has the Falcons looking for its fourth head coach in six seasons is resting with Petrino.

However, there are many sports fans not outraged by Petrino's behavior. They understand Petrino's behavior or even condone it. Many fans believe that, at the very least, we should expect such behavior in this day in age. Loyalty is simply a casualty of the times, no different than cassette tapes or Betamax VCRs. These apologists dream of being in Petrino's position, having the leverage to "get" the employer before they "get got" themselves. In this era of regularly scheduled layoffs in corporate America, most of us will never have the "hammer" that Petrino has wielded over the last several years. He provides a vicarious thrill. Good for him!

Maybe, but this is very bad for us sports fans and perhaps even us citizens. Why are we so willing to cynically accept that not even a modicum of loyalty should be part of the coach's job description? The young men of the University of Arkansas will be taught leadership by someone who through his actions makes no apology for putting himself above his followers even to their detriment. They will be "led" by someone for whom his football teams are simply a means to his ends (greater money, power and position). Yet, if Tuesday night's press conference announcing Petrino's hiring is any indication, there is nothing but glee in the Razorback Nation at the prospect of the Petrino era. And therein lies the problem.

We the fans are too willing to be the greater fool. Arkansas ignores the manner in which Petrino left Atlanta and simply celebrates his arrival in Fayetteville. The Falcons ignore the so-called commitment that Petrino made to Louisville and lures him to Atlanta. We the fans refuse to hold the decision makers who run our teams accountable for the character of the people hired to coach. We the fan base give these decision makers no incentive to do the right thing. In the process, we also leave ourselves no right to complain. We have enabled the bad behavior that we wish to condemn when "status climbing" coaches jilt one employer and one fan base for the next. Ultimately, much of this is our fault, but we can fix it. Empty seats and unspent dollars can solve a lot of problems.

Let's make sure that today's outrage becomes tomorrow's action. Let's make sure that there will not be another Arkansas, another Atlanta Falcons. Let's make sure that we have seen the last greater fool.

Through the Fire

BAM — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:33:00 GMT

This week, the nation has been gripped by the news of wildfires that continue to rip through Southern California, claiming lives and displacing up to one million people from their homes. Nearly one million people, through no fault of their own, will rely upon each other to battle this disaster and rebuild their community.

Just to the north in Hollywood live thousands more people creating disaster from prosperity either despite or because of the people by whom they are surrounded. There is a message on each side of this coin. The only way to make it through disaster, natural or man-made, is with the support of the right people.

Our hearts go out to our fellow citizens in Southern California because we know their plight could have been ours. There must be no more helpless a feeling than having your entire life unsettled by a natural disaster far beyond one's control. No matter where you live in the United States, you could be the victim of a natural disaster.

Naturally, we feel bad for the ones that happen to live in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, no matter how violent the forces of nature, I am always encouraged to hear stories of communities of strangers pulling together, giving whatever help they can wherever it is needed. As we continue to watch the news coverage, we will hear more stories of heroism and how average citizens help each other avert an even larger tragedy.

Now, juxtapose the plight of Southern California residents in fire-ravaged areas against the lives of their neighbors to the north. Hollywood, the city, and "Hollywood," the attitude, sitting just north of the real natural disaster, is the center of a steady inferno of news stories about celebrities who continue to create their own disasters.

In the last couple weeks, we learned that actor Kiefer Sutherland will do jail time for his repeated insistence on driving drunk, rapper/actor T.I. will face gun charges for attempting to purchase machine guns, and singer Britney Spears can't seem to stay out of the clubs despite being threatened by a judge with the prospect of losing her two young children. All three are undoubtedly flanked by dozens of handlers and hangers-on, but clearly not one person who could protect them from their own natural disaster: themselves.

There is a lesson here for us common folk: The only way to make it through the fire, literally or figuratively, is to have people around you that are truly interested in your well being.

In the current hit song, "Make Me Better," by rapper Fabolous featuring R&B singer Ne-Yo, Ne-Yo, he sings, "I'm a movement by myself / But I'm a force when we're together / Mami, I'm good all by myself / But baby you, you make me better."

If we are to have any success in life, we must accept the responsibility to surround ourselves with people who, as the song says, make us better. This is not always easy. One does not have to be a celebrity to be tempted to seek the company of enablers. It is rarely easy to hear what we need to hear about ourselves. However, the path of least resistance offered by enablers often leads directly into harm's way.

Somebody was watching the kids Britney is about to lose while she went clubbing. T.I sent a loyal employee to buy the guns that will likely earn him a "bid" of some sort. I'm sure Kiefer has an agent who knows it's hard to film 24 while spending 24-7 in a 10 by 12.

Remember, the truth hurts sometimes, but not nearly as much as the consequences of fire. As far too many southern Californians will tell you, it is impossible to make it through the fire alone. It is our responsibility to surround ourselves with people who want us to be well, even it means taking some unwanted heat from them occasionally.

Let's hope our friends in southern California make it through the fire with no more lives lost, no more injuries, and no more destruction of property. If this is to happen, it will be because people put the well being of other people first. Those charged with saving and protecting lives and those who simply feel responsible to and for their neighbors will band together to rebuild lives and communities.

In her classic R&B hit song Through the Fire, Chaka Khan sings, "Through the fire / To the limit / To the wall / For the chance to be with you / I'd gladly risk it all."

In order to make it through the inevitable disasters in life, we need to stock up on people who feel the same way about us that Chaka felt about her song's inspiration.

"The Boss" Still at a Loss as a Leader

BAM — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:20:00 GMT

According to many published reports, New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner will fire the team's manager Joe Torre this week for failing to lead the Yankees past the American League Division Series for the third consecutive year. Steinbrenner backers say that the owner pays for the groceries, paraphrasing former NFL coach Bill Parcells, and therefore has the right to dictate who cooks them. This is true. However, if Steinbrenner does fire Torre, he will only succeed in exposing his own flaws as a leader.

George Steinbrenner, a.k.a. "The Boss," is best known in the sports world for his famously strong drive to win at all costs. Historically, George has led with equal parts money and mouth, paying top dollar for player and coaching talent and liberally criticizing this talent in the media when they do not perform up to his expectations. Those expectations are famously high. The Yankees, in Steinbrenner's eyes, only have two types of seasons: World Series championships and failures. One would surmise that if George was really "all about winning," he would be very pleased with Joe Torre's accomplishments as the manager of his New York Yankees.

In the Torre era, the 12 seasons from 1996 through 2007, the Yankees have won four World Series championships, six American league pennants, ten division championships and have qualified for the playoffs in all twelve seasons. By contrast, in the 12 seasons immediately preceding the Torre era, the Yankees won no division titles and made only one playoff appearance. By most standards, results like these would have earned the coach responsible lifetime employment. One may even expect Steinbrenner to remember how infrequently the Yankees played in October in the years before Torre's arrival and be thankful for such an esteemed track record. After all, even making the playoffs are not a given for any team. The Yankees were only playoff team in 2007 that qualified for the playoff in 2006! However, as any baseball fan knows, the Yankees do not adhere to any standard except that of "The Boss."

Were The Boss more self-aware, he would use his unique vantage point to learn from the leadership acumen Joe Torre has demonstrated over the last 12 years. Torre is servant leadership embodied, running his team as if he only exists to put his players in the best position to succeed. Torre gives the players credit for their achievements, but takes sole responsibility for team failures. He never "motivates" by criticizing players in the media, a favorite tactic of Steinbrenner's, but disciplines players in private. Despite its location in New York City, a city in which the media is just as intent on creating controversy as reporting it, you rarely hear finger-pointing come from the Torre-led Yankee locker room. These Yankees are much more difficult to dislike than other editions because they operate in the image of their on-field leader, with class. Torre understands his most important role, like a masterful director, is to help the actors perform rather to trying to be the show.

The best testament to Torre's ability as a leader, however, is the non-stop chorus of supporting coming from his players and even opposing players in support of his continuing on as the Yankees manager. In an era in which professional athletes regularly throw their coaches "under the bus" after bitter defeats, it was almost heartwarming to see Yankees stars Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Alex Rodriguez, and Johnny Damon all speak out in support of Torre. However, when Boston Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz said that the Yankees would be "crazy" to get rid of Torre, "The Boss" should have been taking particular notice. One does not get these types of endorsements by being the wrong person for the job.

By contrast, George Steinbrenner's leadership style does not inspire many people to "stomp their feet and light a match" on his behalf. In an industry in which the most successful team owners choose strong front-office and on-field leadership and then get out of the way, George Steinbrenner has always been the prototypical "me-first" owner. The "me-first" owner is not content with just winning, but he must win in such a way that gives that owner the lion's share of the credit. The "me-first" leader's cravings for limelight are often poisonous to organizations of all types that hope to be successful. Not coincidentally, "me-first" owners in sports generally do not win championships. The simple fact is that a corporate CEO in an unrelated industry, the profile of most major sports team owners, is no more likely to have success at running the on-field operations of a sports franchise than the average sports general manager would have running a Fortune 500 company. Even the most mediocre big business CEO knows that he or she has no business signing the checks and running the plant. However, George's ego will not allow him to stay out of the plant. This is the fatal flaw of all "me-first" leaders.

By this time next week, the Yankees may have a new manager. That would be a shame, but not at all unexpected. Very rarely does a poor leader at the top of an organization tolerate extraordinary leadership talent to thrive at lower levels. Invariably, that "leader" gets tired of looking inferior by comparison.

Donovan McNabb Took the Race Bait

BAM — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:04:00 GMT

This week, in an interview on HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb re-ignited an old, familiar debate. During the interview, McNabb suggested that black quarterbacks get criticized "differently," meaning more harshly, than do white quarterbacks, and black quarterbacks have to do "a little extra" to earn the same praise that a white quarterback would earn. Donovan McNabb was the latest to take the race bait and, with his words, another counterproductive discussion on race in sports ensued.

Such a discussion is destined to be counterproductive because, predictably, people on each side of the argument have retreated to their long fortified positions rather than engaging in any meaningful dialogue. One side claims that McNabb's statements are outdated and unfounded. The fact that McNabb is an NFL quarterback when so many his black athletic predecessors were not given that opportunity is in itself proof of progress. McNabb gets criticism because he plays for the most unforgiving fan base, in one of the most unforgiving media markets, at the most scrutinized position in sports.

Proponents of this argument will site examples such as Peyton Manning, the white quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts, who endured unrelenting criticism of his game despite posting NFL record statistics because, until last season, he had a zero in the most important statistical column: Super Bowl wins. Peyton bashers would even use his University of Tennessee team's 0-4 record against the University of Florida to prove their case against his NFL record. Being white did not spare Peyton from any of this criticism. Some will argue that McNabb deserves the criticism he is getting for his play today because his team is 0-2 and he has been mediocre on the field. People who make any of these arguments are correct.

Those on the other side of the race argument will argue that it is an irrefutable fact that Donovan McNabb and other black players face challenges that white players do not. Therefore, the journey to achieve and maintain success is, by definition, more difficult for black players than for white players. Those on this side will cite the fact that in the National Football League, in which the majority of the players are black, the vast majority of the on-field leaders (quarterbacks and head coaches) are white. They will argue this is because of the obvious discrimination of white decision makers who are products of a society that is far from color blind.

Why would the NFL need the so-called Rooney Rule, which requires teams to interview at least one minority candidate for any open head coaching position, if decisions were being made based only on merit? Reviewing poll results on any issue in which race is a factor will reveal immediately that racial identification is a strong predictor of opinion and, therefore, of the decisions made based upon those opinions. No matter the field, people will give the benefit of the doubt to those with whom they identify, and tend to fault those with whom they do not. More often than not, blacks still get the short end of that stick. People who make any of these arguments are also correct.

Ultimately, it is an unproductive discussion because there is absolutely no way to achieve the implied goal of removing all influence of race when evaluating, praising, or criticizing the performance of any individual. First, it is impossible to define to what extent this is a problem. How are we supposed to define "more harsh criticism" with the purpose of ensuring that criticism is fair as it pertains to race? We cannot scientifically strip out the factors that are "fair game" (points not scored, passes not completed) from those that are not fair game (biases, false perceptions) which can together make up a scathing review of a quarterback's performance. The person who offers these less than complementary opinions certainly will not admit that the race of the player helps add bite to his comments or soften the criticism. Inevitably, this type of discussion satisfies only those who profit from discord and controversy and leaves the rest of us chasing our tails.

In the end, this debate simply invites us to shout our pre-established positions without any possibility of arriving at a better solution. Even worse, it prevents us from the discussion of more important topics in the area of race. Donovan McNabb, despite his current protestations to the contrary, has not been substantially damaged by this double standard. He has become unquestionably one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL despite the systematic bias that he undoubtedly faced in his early career and the outright opposition he has faced from even those who should have been supporters. He began his professional career hearing boos by Philadelphia Eagles fans who objected to their favorite team's decision to draft him. Yet none of this opposition has stopped him from putting together what could become a Hall of Fame career. His example of un-rigging a rigged game is one from which we can all learn.

Unfortunately, rather than focusing on his record of achievement, the discussion around McNabb's comments today may convince some people that "the system" actively prevents certain individuals from succeeding. The tragedy is that some of those "certain individuals" may take Donovan McNabb's comments as proof that striving is futile, which is counter to everything for which he stands.

My hope is that the next time the McNabb question is posed to a public figure, he or she simply refuses to take the bait.

The Mock-arazzi

BAM — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:53:00 GMT

Everyone seems to bemoan how mean-spirited we have become as a society. No matter who you talk you, he or she will tell you we don't treat each other as well as we did last month, last year, or last decade. We all seem to want it to change...or do we?

If our taste in entertainment is any indication, maybe we are the problem. We have become the Mock-arazzi, dedicated to chasing celebrities with insults like the paparazzi chase them with cameras. We are the unwavering fan base for reality TV shows, radio shock jocks, and print and online publications that exist to highlight and make light of the problems of famous people. Worse still, our insatiable desire to mock each other may be changing the way we relate to each other.

There is no question that we get a large amount of our entertainment and joy from the misfortune of others. This week, and for many previous weeks, society's favorite punching bag has been singer Britney Spears. She appeared on the MTV Video Music Awards recently and gave a performance that was less than her best. This performance was met by a sickening amount of glee.

Fellow celebrities openly mocked Britney. Comedians came out of the woodwork to revel in her misfortune. Joy Behar, the fifty-something co-host of ABC's The View, likened Britney's body (perhaps five to ten pounds heavier than at her best) to that of the morbidly obese Sopranos star James Gandolfini. Comedian Sarah Silverman cracked jokes about Britney's children immediately after her performance, calling them "cute mistakes."

No one seemed to have an ounce of pity for a woman still in her twenties that appears to be on the bullet train to real trouble. In fact, we seem rather entertained by her travails. What does that say about us?

We have become an extension of those ambulance-chasing dudes armed with Nikons. Just as overly aggressive photographers make their living scaling security walls to get forbidden photos of celebrities, we now have joined the chase with our insults. Our desire to hear bad news about stars seems to be insatiable.

We have made people like Perez Hilton into successful media players due to their ability to tickle our funny bones with cruelty and derision. Perez and others could not exist without a faithful customer base. Our support of Perez and his ilk has created an industry that thrives upon abusing the helpless. Pulling the wings off of butterflies and stealing candy from babies is now, sadly, very much en vogue.

Some people will say, "Who cares?" They will say celebrities know what they are getting into when they sign up for fame. This sort of abuse is the tax celebrities agree to pay when they come to work, like the FICA withheld from their checks. Maybe.

If we are so willing to treat Britney like yesterday's donuts, why would we treat our fellow citizens any differently? Does this behavior not help set the standard for our behavior in general? Are we saying that strangers, as Britney is to most of us, deserve no common decency and no modicum of compassion?

At the end of the day, we are responsible for this mean-spirited world in which we live. With every day we tune into mock someone else's misfortune we increase the likelihood that we will be the butt of the joke. Every time we tolerate a world in which underachievement is more entertaining to us than achievement, we allow that world to become more and more entrenched. For every day we seek to have one set of rules for ourselves and a less favorable set for our neighbor is a day that we deserve the emotional violence visited upon us when we misstep. Is this really the world in which we want to live?

It is time to rise up and rise above our Mock-arazzi tendencies.

Boo Your Home Team at Your Own Peril

BAM — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:05:00 GMT

Chicago Cubs pitcher Carlos Zambrano was booed by his hometown fans yesterday after another poor outing and he was not happy about it. He criticized the fans in a post-game interview and promised that he would remember their behavior, and presumably hold a grudge against them. I agree with Zambrano completely. Booing your own team is insane! Fans who boo their home teams generally get what they deserve: an underachieving team.

Some fans believe it is their right to boo the home team, a right guaranteed by virtue of holding a valid ticket. They boo when the athlete fails to do his or her "job" as defined by the fan. However, the fans who boo the home team are not doing their "jobs" either. In most team sports, there is a demonstrable home field advantage. Teams typically play better and win more in their home facility than they do on the road. This rule is so consistent that Las Vegas odds makers give the home team "credit" in point-spreads simply for being at home.

Why? This advantage is not created by the rules of the game or the particulars of the playing surface but the energy the players receive by playing before supportive fans. Conversely, the less support a team receives from the home crowd, the less likely the team is to play well and the more likely fans will be motivated to withhold support or worse, to boo. How ironic? By "hating on" the home team, those fans are more likely to get more of the performance they hate. So, why boo?

Fans that boo their home teams not only hurt their teams that day, but they damage the prospects in the future as well. New York Yankees fans may feel the sting of their own bad behavior this winter. Yankees fans did their best to destroy the confidence of their third baseman Alex Rodriguez last season. For committing the unpardonable sin of hitting "only" 35 home runs and driving in "only" 121 runs, and in their opinion under-performing under his big contract, A-Rod was booed mercilessly in Yankee Stadium last year. The impact? Rodriguez, who has returned to his former Unquestioned-Best-Player-in-the-Game status, will likely either opt out of his contract and take his game to the competition after this season or hijack the Yankees for an even bigger contact that could limit even the Yankees' ability to sign other players. There will be no "hometown discount" for the Yankees. The bad taste of last year that most certainly lingers on A-Rod's taste buds will ultimately be a lose-lose situation for Yankee fans. However, they will have earned any misfortune that befalls them.

Booing the home team never helps that team play better. Is it a coincidence that Philadelphia, home of the most notoriously non-supportive sports fans, has one of the worst records of success in professional sports? Philadelphia has a representative in each of the four major sports (baseball, football, basketball and hockey) and plays in a major television market. Yet Philadelphia-based teams have won no championships since 1980 and only nine in their nearly 300 seasons of competition in the four major sports. Most athletes are not begging their agents to send them to Philadelphia — and with good reason. Those athletes know that in a city where Hall of Fame third baseman and former Phillie Mike Schmidt can be booed, anyone can be booed. There the Philadelphia teams sit, mostly undistinguished.

Cubs fans, and any others who follow their example, can boo the home team all they like. It is perfectly within their rights as ticket holders. But they will only succeed in encouraging more of the poor play that caused them to boo in the first place. Even a child knows that good consequences don't come from bad behavior. In sports, as in life, you don't get dessert by refusing to eat your dinner. However, maybe Cubs fans are already enjoying their dessert. Now that the White Sox and Red Sox have won World Series titles recently, Cubs fans have no competition for at least one title, "Longest World Series Drought Suffered."